A reader writes:
Hi Jimmy!
I’m a long-time reader of your blog, since the very beginning actually! I just wanted to ask your opinion on an issue that recently came up. I joined a bible study not too long ago on the book of Genesis. In this study, we learned that the Pentateuch was not actually written by Moses, but that portions were written by various authors at various times, which explains why many accounts supposedly contradict each other.
For example, the study mentioned 4 “authors”: Priestly, Yahwist, Elohist, and Deuteronomic. Each has a unique style to express their message. Our facilitator then talked about the two different creation stories, and how they reflected different authors with different purposes. This type of bible scholarship seemed a little too “modern” and liberal to me, so I wanted to ask if there was any merit to this type of scholarship. Has the Church said anything about the idea of 4 different authors composing the Pentateuch, esp. with regards to the book of Genesis? Thanks!
Early in the 20th century the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued documents rejecting this type of approach to the Pentateuch, though these documents were disciplinary in force (as opposed to doctrinal) and they lapsed in the mid 20th century. Since that time, Catholic Bible scholars have been permitted to advance this kind of view.
If you read John Paul II’s Original Unity of Man and Woman, it is clear that he personally favors the four-source hypothesis. This, however, is his personal opinion and not something that he (or the Church) has taught with Magisterial authority. Consequently, it is incorrect to represent it as something the Church teaches.
It also is worth pointing out that the four-source hypothesis is not certain. In fact, in Protestant circles, the theory has become passe to many, with scholars claiming that the so-called Elohist source is really not a separate source at all.
There are also significant refutations of the theory. I especially recommend the book Before Abraham Was, by Kikawada and Quinn. It is absolutely devastating. First they make the strongest case they can for the theory. Then they tear it apart. Unfortunatley, it’s out of print, but a used book service may turn it up.
Personally, I have not studied the matter in sufficient depth to resolve in my mind the question of how many and what sources there may be contributing to the Pentateuch, but I am quite suspicious of the idea that the four-source hypothesis has it correctly worked out.
I also would like to comment on the particularly destructive way in which the hypothesis is often presented. It often is portrayed as an explanation for numerous "errors" or "contradictions" in the Pentateuch. In reality, there are none of these. As Vatican II taught, whatever is asserted by the sacred author is also asserted by the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is infallible, he makes no errors in his assertions. Therefore, any perceived errors or contradictions in Scripture are not this in reality. They are either to be harmonized or they are non-assertions (e.g., figures of speech not meant to be taken literally).
My main problem with any kind of higher-criticism and its supporters is not its accuracy per se, but the fact that such questions of human sources and textual history are given an exaggerated place of importance.
Not that such considerations are worthless. More important, however, is reading with devotion, understanding the totality of scripture *as it was handed down to us*, remembering that the author is also the Holy Spirit, and remembering that regarding all that pertains to our salvation the Scriptures are absolutely inerrant.
Why doesn’t more education and more Catholic commentary focus on these things?
For what it’s worth…
I’m currently taking Principles of Biblical Study I from Steubenville. The theory is used heavily in the textbook. However the professor has noted that he does not personally “take it as far” as the textbook does.
Sounds like it’s a subject that is left fairly wide open.
I just made a back-order on Amazon for this book. I recommend you do it too, for the moment it pops up on their used book lists, it can be yours.
There is something to be said for the theory that while Moses was the prophet of the text proper he probably was using various scribes to record the actual text. I don’t believe Jewish or Christian tradition views this as a problem. It also helps deal with the fact that the closing text of the Pentatauch is written after Moses’ death. By admission of the text one of the primary scribes was probably Joshua.
I concur with Jimmy though. In general the proponents of this theory are actively trying to rip the text appart. They also use analysis that tends to be shady. Such analysis has led to a wide variety of numbers being proposed (4 tends to be the most common but 5 had its day and I’ve seen higher).
Vatican II stated: “The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error the truth which God wanted put into the Sacred Writings for the sake of our salvation.”
The statement is ambigious because what exactly does “for the sake of our salvation mean”? Certainly the fact that the New Jerome Bible Commentary and the works of Brown, Meier & Fitzmyer are published with the imprimatuer would indicate that the majority view is that infallibility does not mean historical accuracy. These authors quite freely use the term “contradiction” in describing the Bible. Meier, for example, doesn’t believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
As I recall the late Fr. William Most critiqued the likes of Brown in a book called Free From All Error.
I heard someone argue that Hebrews could not have been written by Paul because it sounds different than his other letters.
I said that I sound alot different when writing to my Mom than when I write to my brother, or to any number of other people. The style and vocabulary vary according to the audience.
Similarly, the same biblical writer can refer to the Lord using different titles depending on what characteristic of God’s relationship to us that he wants to emphasize.
My personal favorite is the assertion that Esther must have been written by a woman, because women come off pretty well in it. And people get PAID for this!!
Dei Verbum is only ambiguous if you take one sentence of it divorced from the rest of the document, and divorced from the first teaching of the Church for centuries before. Here is what Dei Verbum says:
“…the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their ENTIRETY, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
Note that every single book of the Bible, “in their ENTIRETY, with ALL their parts”, are written under the inspiration of God. Dei Verbum goes on:
“…everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit”
In both these passages, the document is clear that EVERYTHING in EVERY BOOK of the Bible is “asserted by the Holy Spirit”. Thus, to accuse the Scriptures of error, IN ANY PASSAGE, is to accuse the Holy Spirit himself of “affirming” error
Of course, every passage must be understood according to the intent of the person who wrote it. If he did not intend to give an exact historical account, or if he is writing with the liberty of the historical methods of his time, then you cannot charge him with error, because error is a falsehood in what you intended to state. If he is writing an exact historical account, then you must accept what he said, regardless of what rationalist historians claim to the contrary.
I dunno — those old PBC decrees were something that the Pope required all Catholics to give the assent of faith. Doesn’t sound like they were merely disciplinary. But in any case, whatever theories Catholic writers and exegetes can and can’t get away with without the Church whacking them, I am absolutely convinced that there’s never been any compelling evidence supporting JEPD. Mark Shea’s splendid spoof of “form criticism” (or whatever highfalutin name it goes by these days), with an imaginary pseudoscholar applying a species of the historico-critical method to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson’s LOTR movies, demonstrates just how dubious are the claims and conclusions that the exegetes frequently present to us.
I’m not aware of a single catholic theologian or university that teaches biblical inerrancy (not even Steubenville, apparently).
One example is Meier’s A Marginal Jew which is printed with the imprimatuer. Meier doubts the historical accuracy of much of the infancy narratives, says there are “contradictions” between the two, Luke “misunderstands” Jewish customs, etc. He doesn’t think Jesus was born in Bethlem.
Or, Ray Brown in his book Responses to 101 Questions (also with imprimatuer) denies or questions (you can never tell with Ray) the historicity of Adam and Eve.
If the argument is that these are two orthodox authors who are saying only that they biblical writers are not intending to give an exact historical account, then how far does this go? What about the Virgin birth? Maybe Isaiah never lived, but the person who wrote the book didn’t intend to write strict history.
Steubenville teacher here – mostly moral theology, but intro-level Scripture too (I minored in Scripture in my grad program and have published a couple of journal articles on Scripture and the interpretation and use thereof, in Communio and Catholic Biblical Quarterly).
First: I think the Bible is inerrant. But I also think one has to read that statement in light of the fact that “error” is relative to authorial intention. In other words, if something is “beside the point” that a biblical author was trying to make (i.e., is not what the human authors were exactly “asserting”), it can be “wrong,” without that implying that the Bible is erroneous.
Second: I just don’t think it can be seriously disputed that – on a level that’s unrelated to the “point(s)” of the text – there are “contradictions” (not just differences in emphasis) and the like. (In the Pentateuch, one thinks of the question of when exactly the divine name YHWH was first revealed and known – or the relative ages of Ishmael and Isaac – or …) Despite what historical-criticism proponents and opponents alike sometimes assume, this doesn’t negate the value of the Bible (see the first point), but it does mean something about the historical process by which its inspired human authorship was accomplished.
Third: I think it’s very likely that there were some sort of “sources” for the Pentateuch (and later than Moses) (and I’m suspicious of claims that source hypotheses per se have been really refuted). But it’s also likely that the “classic” JEDP hypothesis needs to be modified in various ways – and that we’ll never know exactly what the historical process was by which inspired human authors wrote and put together the Pentateuch as we have it.
Fourth: I think that scholars have often made too much of source criticism and the like as “the” way to understand the Bible – but I also think it’s of some use – that it has its place. One should note not only that the pope clearly regards it as acceptable (he alludes to it not only in the Theology of the Body lectures but elsewhere as well, including quite recently). One should note also Ratzinger’s book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, which actually uses it as one of the bases for his interpretation of Genesis. (Again, of course, that doesn’t mean that the particular JEDP hypothesis he relies on is exactly right – or that historical criticism is anything like the most important thing in Catholic exegesis.)
Oh, regarding Hebrews, which someone mentions above – it’s worth noting that – unlike the “deutero-Pauline” letters – it doesn’t even contain a claim to be by Paul. It’s also worth noting that in the Catholic lectionary, readings from Hebrews are begun with “A reading from the letter to the Hebrews” – not “A reading from the letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews” – whereas all the Pauline letters, including the “deutero-Paulines,” are begin with “A reading from the letter of St. Paul to …”
I don’t have a problem with asserting that biblical writers don’t always have our idea of historical accuracy in view. Nor do I have a problem with the claim that certain biblical difficulties can be reconciled if one of the sources is not meant to be strict history (John and the Synoptics).
The question is where one draws the line, and at some point the claim that the biblical writer didn’t mean to write strict history can turn into an excuse to “demythologize” the Bible.
If some Catholics do use the term “inerrancy” to describe their position, they are probably in the minority and don’t mean it in the sense that conservative protestants do. Ray Brown points out that Vatican II dropped the term “inerrancy” and rejected an “ultraconservative” draft “On the Sources of Revelation.” The final documents had some favorable language as a sop to conservatives.
Incidentally, Brown (who was a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission) argues that the pre-Vatican II PBC teachings were doctrinal.
Yes, the current lectionary doesn’t attribute Hebrews to St. Paul, but the Council of Trent did, and I understand that Greek Bibles have always placed Hebrews between St. Paul’s letters to the churches and St. Paul’s pastoral letters.
Steve,
Who cares what Raymond Brown thinks? I have already showed you what the Catholic Church teaches.
Ray brown can stick his feather in a hat and call it heterodoxy.
“First: I think the Bible is inerrant. But I also think one has to read that statement in light of the fact that ‘error’ is relative to authorial intention. In other words, if something is ‘beside the point’ that a biblical author was trying to make (i.e., is not what the human authors were exactly “asserting”), it can be ‘wrong,’ without that implying that the Bible is erroneous.”
You’ll have to explain what you mean by that, because the Church’s teaching has always been that the Bible contains no errors at all, because the Holy Spirit is omniscient and incapable of error or falsehoods, even if they are “beside the point.” I think I know what you mean — for instance, Judith contains apparent historical errors, but then Judith was written as a parable or historical fiction, so questions of historical inaccuracy are irrelevant; or, say, the question of Psalm 19 and heliocentrism. A wrongheaded literalism or hyperliteralism will render the Bible a heap of foolishness. That’s not how the Holy Spirit means us to read the Bible, and it’s not how the Church has ever read the Bible.
btw, in the Professio Fidei, Cardinal Ratzinger includes on the same level as the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts”.
>>>”I just don’t think it can be seriously disputed that – on a level that’s unrelated to the “point(s)” of the text – there are “contradictions” (not just differences in emphasis) and the like.”
I have yet to see anyone bring any text to light that cannot be adequately reconciled. As St. Augustine said, we have three options when the Scriptures appear to err: 1) The meaning is unclear, 2) We are not understanding it correctly, or 3) The translation is bad.
Jared: Please note again my affirmation of “inerrancy.” My point is that a contradiction or the like isn’t necessarily an “error” properly so-called – depending on what the author was trying to assert. And note the precise words of Dei Verbum, quoted in an earlier comment: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit.” My point is that not everything in the text is necessarily something that the authors were exactly trying to “assert.”
Also, regarding Hebrews – I doubt that Trent’s statement on its authorship was dogmatic, or probably even doctrinal. (It’s a historcal question, not a faith/morals question.)
Jason: See the examples I mentioned. According to Gen. 4 and 12, God was called YHWH as early as the third human generation and certainly by Abraham. But according to Ex. 6, God had not made that name known till he made it known to Moses. According to Gen. 16 and 17, Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born and 99 when Ishmael was 13. According to Gen. 21, when Abraham was 100 and Isaac was a newborn, Ishmael was still an infant, rather than anything like 14. Or – in the space of the “one” flood story, there are different accounts of how many of each kind of animal was taken aboard, and probably of how long the flood lasted. Or – … You get the idea – but there are certainly other examples as well. I don’t think there’s any serious way to reconcile these differences – I think that attempts to do so look contrived at best. I think they clearly indicate multiple (and post-Moses) sources. (I once saw a ludicrously bad article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review attempting to reconcile the orders of creation in Gen. 1 and 2.) The Church (JPII, Ratzinger, …) certainly accepts the possibility of such sources. Recourse to them is, I think, the more serious way to deal with the text. So suggests Ratzinger in In the Beginning – so I think as well. I refuse to play “more Catholic than the head of the CDF,” especially by means of advancing hypotheses that are contrary to the best reasoning (cf. “Fides et Ratio”).
“Who cares what Raymond Brown thinks?”
Paul VI, for one, who named him a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
One final, I think, point here – final because I don’t want to get into an endless discussion about this, especially since, as I said, I think historical criticism is probably overused, even though I disagree with some of the attacks on it.
In the PBC’s Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, we are told that the development of modern historical criticism was motivated by, among other things, “discrepancies in content,” as in the Pentateuch.
Now, I know that the PBC isn’t per se a magisterial body. But please note that this document is prefaced by Cardinal Ratzinger, who doesn’t dismiss its conclusions as improbable, let alone dismiss its premises as contrary to Catholic teaching. Rather, he notes that the PBC “enjoy[s] the confidence of the teaching office.” He calls the document “a well-grounded overview of the panorama of present-day methods.” He says, “I believe that this document is very helpful for the important questions about the right way of understanding Holy Scripture. It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 and advances them in a fruitful way.” And he concludes, “I hope that the document will have a wide circulation so that it becomes a genuine contribution to the search for a deeper assimilation of the word of God in Holy Scripture.”
So you need to understand that if you go as far as some critics of source hypotheses do, concerning the meaning of “inerrancy” or questions of authorship, you are indeed playing “more Catholic than the head of the CDF.”
Oh, just one more thing. Here’s one of JPII’s most recent statements on a Pentateuch text – his 6/19/02 address on the canticle in Deut. 32. Note how the pope begins – he does not disagree with, but, rather, implicitly agrees with, the “analysis” he cites:
=== quote on ===
1. “Then Moses recited the words of this song from beginning to end, for the whole assembly of Israel to hear” (Deuteronomy 31:30). This is how the canticle we have just heard begins, which has been taken from the last pages of the Book of Deuteronomy, specifically from Chapter 32. The liturgy of lauds has taken the first 12 verses from it, recognizing in them a joyful hymn to the Lord who lovingly protects and cares for his people amid the day´s dangers and difficulties. The analysis of the canticle revealed that it is an ancient text, but later than Moses, which was put on his lips, to give it a solemn character. This liturgical canticle is placed at the very origins of the history of the people of Israel. On that prayerful page there is no lack of references and links to some Psalms or to the message of prophets: Hence, it was a moving and intense expression of the faith of Israel.
=== quote off ===
>>>”God was called YHWH as early as the third human generation and certainly by Abraham. But according to Ex. 6, God had not made that name known till he made it known to Moses.”
Exodus 6 does not say that. Verse 2 says “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God almighty, but my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”. All he says is that he did not reveal his name to those three men when he first appeared to them. He says nothing about not revealing his name to anyone else.
>>>”According to Gen. 16 and 17, Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born and 99 when Ishmael was 13.”
Yes? 86+13=99.
>>>”According to Gen. 21, when Abraham was 100 and Isaac was a newborn, Ishmael was still an infant, rather than anything like 14.”
It says nothing about Ishmael being an infant. It calls Ishmael a “lad”, and also indicates he could speak, (because God could hear what he said, and responded in kind). Ishmael was only 13. There is nothing out of ordinary with him “playing” with Isaac. He was still a child himself.
>>>”Or – in the space of the “one” flood story, there are different accounts of how many of each kind of animal was taken aboard, and probably of how long the flood lasted.”
This is too broad an example, so I can’t examine it. But since your other examples didn’t hold up, forgive my doubts on this one.
>>>”I once saw a ludicrously bad article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review attempting to reconcile the orders of creation in Gen. 1 and 2″
There is no strife between Genesis 1 and 2. They are not two different creation stories; Genesis 1 just focuses on the ORDER of creation, whereas Genesis 2 focuses on man, rather than the order of creation. Gen 2:4 says “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the Heavens…” By “day”, he is just saying “in the period that God made heaven and earth”, as “day” doesn’t have to mean a literal day (since, as Gen 1 tells us, it took 7 days). The next verse goes on to say “when no plant of the field was yet on the earth…” It is not saying that man was created before the plants; it is simply saying that that “day” God created was created from nothing. “Then”, when that “day” had finished, “The Lord God formed man of the dust”. It doesn’t contradict the order of creation in Genesis 1. It’s not even concerned with the order of creation.
>>>”The Church (JPII, Ratzinger, …) certainly accepts the possibility of such sources. Recourse to them is, I think, the more serious way to deal with the text.”
Whatever the Church allows in regards to “sources”, it allows it with the limits of its firm teaching in the inerrancy of Scripture in all that it asserts. The Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures in all their parts, whether they came from Moses or someone else.
>>>”Paul VI, for one, who named him a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.”
Fortunately, Paul VI didn’t name him Pope. His opinions are nothing short of irrelevant, particularly considering the PBC has no authority at all.
>>>”So you need to understand that if you go as far as some critics of source hypotheses do, concerning the meaning of “inerrancy” or questions of authorship, you are indeed playing “more Catholic than the head of the CDF.”
The Church has already told us what she believes in regards to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. If you choose to interpret Cardinal Ratzinger in a manner that violates that, that is your decision. Especially considering that in an AUTHORITATIVE commentary on the Professio Fidei, Cardinal Ratzinger has already made clear the dogmatic nature of the “absence of error” in Scripture.
Jason: First: You’re not listening. I AGREE about the “absence of error.” What I’m suggesting is that you and some interpreters need to rethink the MEANING of that teaching, and specifically of “error.” I think you’re reading it in a gratuitously broad way. As, evidently, do people like Ratzinger, and I’ll take my bearings from them, thank you very much.
Second, regarding my examples.
A. In Ex. 6, we’re told that the name “LORD” (Heb. YHWH) wasn’t made known to Abraham (or his son or grandson) – period. Not only that it wasn’t made known to Abraham when God first appeared to him. This simply can’t be reconciled with Gen. 12 (or other things in Gen.).
B. Gen. 21 clearly portrays Ishamel as an infant, being carried on his mother’s back, being left to cry under a bush, etc. – not as a 14-y.o.
C. I don’t know what you mean by “broad.” Either there was a pair of each kind, or a pair of each unclean kind and seven pairs of each clean kind. Clearly, we have two irreconcilable traditions that have both been included.
D. When you read Gen. 2 as a whole, it is patently obvious that first man is created, then plants are planted for him, then the animals are made for him. (In contrast to Gen. 1, which clearly suggests that the first man is created only after everything else, notably the plants and animals.)
One truly final point. This, from Ratzinger’s Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism, strikes me as a very balanced and helpful statement regarding historical criticism in general and its genuine but limited role.
=== quote on ===
The school of canonical exegesis, whose importance is growing in America, insists emphatically that the primary task of all interpretation is to understand the given text as such. It must not evade this task by analyzing the text into its conjectured sources and in the end treating only of these. Of course, exegesis can and must also investigate the internal history of the texts in order to trace their developments and thought patterns. We all know that there is much to learn from such work. But it must not lead us to neglect the principal task, which is to understand the text as it now stands, as a totality in itself with its own particular message.
Whoever reads Scripture in faith as a Bible must make a further step. By its very nature, historical interpretation can never take us beyond hypotheses. After all, none of us was there when it happened; only physical science can repeat events in the laboratory. Faith makes us Jesus’ contemporaries. It can and must integrate all true historical discoveries, and it becomes richer for doing so. But faith gives us knowledge of something more than a hypothesis; it gives us the right to trust the revealed Word as such.
=== quote off ===
“My point is that a contradiction or the like isn’t necessarily an ‘error’ properly so-called – depending on what the author was trying to assert.”
Well, when an author is making a historical assertion — a statement that something really happened — if that assertion contradicts other historical assertions, then we know we have an error. Thus, the examples you mention, if they are really contradictions (not just apparent ones), would mean the Bible contains historical error, which means at least part of the Bible is uninspired and must be rejected by the Church. That is the way the Church has always understood biblical inerrancy, and it is the only understanding of biblical inerrancy that makes any sense.
“And note the precise words of Dei Verbum, quoted in an earlier comment: ‘everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit.’ My point is that not everything in the text is necessarily something that the authors were exactly trying to ‘assert.'”
Dei Verbum cannot be made to say something that contradicts the way the Church had previously understood biblical inerrancy — for that is the heresy of Modernism. Everything in the text is being asserted, or else it wouldn’t be in the text. That’s what the word “assert” means.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html
“Also, regarding Hebrews – I doubt that Trent’s statement on its authorship was dogmatic, or probably even doctrinal. (It’s a historcal question, not a faith/morals question.)’
I know Trent’s statement wasn’t dogmatic or doctrinal. The same is true of the current lectionary’s omission of a reference to Pauline authorshup. (Similarly, the lectionary’s use of St. Mark’s Gospel is not a dogmatic or doctrinal statement on the question of Markan priority.) Rather, Trent’s statement is testimony of the longstanding tradition of the Church on this historical question. I’ve never seen any compelling reason to doubt that tradition, so I’m satisfied that St. Paul had something to do with the origin and composition of Hebrews.
Sorry, that previous post was from me.
>>>”What I’m suggesting is that you and some interpreters need to rethink the MEANING of that teaching, and specifically of “error.” I think you’re reading it in a gratuitously broad way. As, evidently, do people like Ratzinger, and I’ll take my bearings from them, thank you very much.”
The teaching of the Roman Pontiffs and the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council are so plain on what the doctrine is it’s kind of hard to misinterpret, unless you are obstinately blind to it (not saying you are). I take my bearings from Cardinal Ratzinger as well, in addition to the magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. I don’t see conflict between them.
I don’t want to get into a tit for tat on your examples, but I will just say that you are reading error into the texts because of your misunderstanding of the Church’s doctrine on the inerrancy of Scripture. The reconciliation of the texts is hardly anything extraordinary (there are much harder texts to reconcile than the ones you provided). Furthermore, you are exporting that doctrinal error onto the Church’s allowance of a “multiple source” theory. The Church allows leeway in so-called “sources”. Even in sources, which noone is required to maintain, she upholds the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. And the examples you provided ARE examples wherin you are accusing the Holy Spirit of error. For example, you claim the author intended to AFFIRM Ishmael as an infant, but erred. As Vatican II tells us, the Holy Spirit then affirmed his error.
And thanks for the citation from Cardinal Ratzinger. The historical-critical method can go a long way in biblical scholarship, if used in accord with the doctrinal constitution of the Church. For example, it’s interesting to know what an author said such and such, why he phrased it such and such a way, etc. But when, under the pretense of authentic biblical scholarship, someone dares to accuse the Holy Spirit of error, and to spurn the clear teaching of the Church, there is a problem.
“In Ex. 6, we’re told that the name ‘LORD’ (Heb. YHWH) wasn’t made known to Abraham (or his son or grandson) – period.”
Sorry, Ex. 6:3 doesn’t say they didn’t know the name YHVH — it says God didn’t manifest Himself to them under that name. Only if you read Ex. 6:3 like a fundamentalist would you have to conclude that this verse contradicts the preceding parts of Genesis and Exodus where Abraham and the patrarichs refer to God as YHVH.
“Gen. 21 clearly portrays Ishamel as an infant, being carried on his mother’s back, being left to cry under a bush, etc. – not as a 14-y.o.”
If it’s so clear, how come nobody noticed until recently? Also, the text says nothing of Hagar carrying Ishmael on her back — it says Abraham “put” the water bottle and the bread on her back, but that Abraham “took” Ishmael.
BTW, the Hebrew of Gen. 21:9 refers not just to mocking or insult, but to sexual molestation — as if an infant could mock, insult, or sexually molest his young brother! Really, your reading not only introduces error into the text, but it makes the entire episode nonsensical.
“Either there was a pair of each kind, or a pair of each unclean kind and seven pairs of each clean kind. Clearly, we have two irreconcilable traditions that have both been included.”
If so, then the Bible contains errors here, and this passage must be cut out of the Bible.
No one thought this was an irreconcilable tradition before, so how did it become irreconcilable? Really, you shouldn’t read the Bible in such a hyperliteralistic, fundamentalist fashion.
“When you read Gen. 2 as a whole, it is patently obvious that first man is created, then plants are planted for him, then the animals are made for him. (In contrast to Gen. 1, which clearly suggests that the first man is created only after everything else, notably the plants and animals.)’
Patently obvious to you, perhaps, but not to anyone in the Judaeo-Christian tradition over the past two millennia or more. But then they were “pre-critical” — Jesus and the Apostles and the Fathers didn’t have the benefit of the wisdom of 19th. century Protestant scholars to correct their erroneous interpretations of Holy Scripture.
Kevin,
I know you don’t want to extend the discussion, but if you could respond to the point Jared and I made above, I would appreciate it.
That is, how are the examples you gave anything other than examples of the author affirming something you claim is in error?
A) You say the author either falesly affirmed that God didn’t reveal his name (or, on the other end, you claim the author falsely affirmed that God DID reveal his name)
B) You say the author falsely affirms that Ishmael was an infant.
C) You say the author falsely affirms a specific number of animals.
D) You say one author falsely affirms the plants came before man, and then you say another author falsely affirms man came before the plants.
I highlight the word affirm, but the authors are all affirming the things you claim are erroneous. And, as Vatican II made clear, everything they affirm is affirmed by the Lord.
Jared, Jason:
1. You’re reading “assertion” in a gratuitously broad way. My claim is that not everything that the text might seem to “say happened” is necessarily an “assertion” – is necessarily what the author was actually trying to convey (e.g., even though Gen. 1 and 2 are narratives with chronological sequences of events – that doesn’t mean that what the author is trying to assert is those sequences – but rather, deeper points about the relationships between God, man, the rest of the created world, etc.). Again, see JPII, Ratzinger, … (I think you’re misunderstanding DV and JPII and Ratzinger, and I’ve cited several texts, and you’ve cited … nothing. So we’re either going to have to agree to disagree, or you’re going to have to do more than merely assert that I’m the one doing the misunderstanding.)
2. It’s not at all true that DV couldn’t possibly develop the Church’s understanding of inerrancy. And while it can’t contradict (previous) dogma, it can certainly change some doctrines.
3. My point is precisely that if you think the inconsistencies I pointed out are real “errors” – i.e., if you think the authors are necessarily “affirming” the things in question – you are being hyperliteralistic!
4. I don’t want to get bogged down in a long discussion of the details of the passages about Isaac/Ishmael and the divine name. However:
A. Gen. 21:9 says Ishmael was “playing” with Isaac. It’s not necessary that the word have a more specific meaning in a given case.
B. The reading that makes Abraham put the flask and bread on Hagar’s back – rather than Ishmael – is dubious. The better reading is that he put the child on her back.
C. It’s obvious from the totality of the story of vv. 14ff that Ishmael is an infant – who can’t do things like walk or talk or otherwise do anything to care for himself!
D. God tells Moses that he didn’t make his name known to Abraham. That statement would be pointless if Abraham had known the name in some other way.
5. I’m now out of here – as I said, I don’t want to drag this on forever – I’ve now responded multiple times to your various points – and have yet to have those responses actually engaged, but rather merely evaded. As exegetes, we must avoid rationalism, but also fideism.
>>>”My claim is that not everything that the text might seem to “say happened” is necessarily an “assertion” – is necessarily what the author was actually trying to convey (e.g., even though Gen. 1 and 2 are narratives with chronological sequences of events – that doesn’t mean that what the author is trying to assert is those sequences – but rather, deeper points about the relationships between God, man, the rest of the created world, etc.).”
Ok. So the author was basically saying, “it happened in this order, but (wink wink, nudge nudge) it didn’t”. And also, “Ishmael was an infant, but (wink wink, nudge nudge) I’m not REALLY saying he was, I’m just SAYING he was”.
All due respect, Kevin, but this is modernist drivel, pure and simple. It basically makes a mockery of the whole Bible, since, following your logic, you can basically claim the author wasn’t asserting anything anywhere. Jesus didn’t really weep. The author was just making a point about his love for humanity. Jesus didn’t really fall on the way to golgotha. The author was just making a point on the heaviness of the cross. Jesus didn’t really rise from the grave. The author was just showing how Jesus rises in the hearts of his disciples.
To quote the Summa:
“Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”
Genesis 1 and 2 have a deeper sense than the plain text. We must first, however, establish that literal intention of the plain text. “Literal” doesn’t mean “literalist reading”, but what the author intended. To say the author wasn’t intending to give the fundamental order of creation, or to say he wasn’t intending to describe Ishmael how he was, or to say he wasn’t intending to accurately say when God revealed his name, is to just ignore the literal sense of the text. Your approach doesn’t take the literal sense of the text, because it conflicts with your own opinion that the text is in error. Thus, you have to misrepresent the literal sense of the text, in order to justify your opinion, rather than conform your opinion to the literal sense of the text, and in doing so, seeking to reconcile it.
In bringing up the book of Hebrews, I was not strictly arguing that Paul definitely wrote it. I was trying to refute the argument that I had heard that Hebrews COULD NOT have been written by Paul BECAUSE it differs somewhat in form and vocabulary from other pastoral letters that are attributed to Paul. In other words, form critics can fall into error by demanding a narrow and artificial consistency from biblical authors.
After some more thought, I can see how there can be more leeway in the first chapters of Genesis, in that the authors MAY have been using an elaborated method of order (seven days) to explain that God created the world. So I will grant Kevin’s point on that regard, though without necessarily agreeing with it; that is, it seems permissable.
The other points, however, are different from the beginning of Genesis, because they are historical accounts (with the possible exception of every detail of Noah’s flood).
To close this out, I think I agree in substance with Kevin. I think we agree that an assertion by the author is inerrant, but an author might write something in a way that’s not necessarily a strict affirmation, and thus not an “error” in the true sense. However, we probably disagree in the actual application of this to certain the biblical texts.
And just to be clear above, I wasn’t calling Kevin a modernist, just saying that his application to the biblical text is modernist in character, at least in two of the examples he gave.
“It’s not at all true that DV couldn’t possibly develop the Church’s understanding of inerrancy.”
Of course DV **could** develop the Church’s understanding of inerrancy. But there’s no evidence that it did, or intended to — Vatican II restated the Catholic faith for the modern age, but defined no dogmas and introduced no new doctrinal developments. That isn’t why the Council was called and seated.
“And while it can’t contradict (previous) dogma, it can certainly change some doctrines.”
Catholic doctrine cannot “change” — it can only develop in a way consistent with what went before. Anything that has ever been a doctrine of the faith will always be a doctrine of the faith.
“Gen. 21:9 says Ishmael was ‘playing’ with Isaac. It’s not necessary that the word have a more specific meaning in a given case.”
And why would Sarah become upset that Ishmael was playing with his brother? It’s not necessary that the word have an innocuous meaning in this given case. The historical versions and Jewish tradition have not understood the Hebrew verb in an innocuous sense, but have understood that Ishmael was doing something bad to Isaac. I trust that tradition rather than the more recent scholarly opinion.
“The reading that makes Abraham put the flask and bread on Hagar’s back – rather than Ishmael – is dubious. The better reading is that he put the child on her back.”
It may be dubious in your opinion, but it’s how the Jews have understood the passage — Ishmael was sent off with Hagar, but was not slung over her shoulder along with the bread and water.
“It’s obvious from the totality of the story of vv. 14ff that Ishmael is an infant – who can’t do things like walk or talk or otherwise do anything to care for himself!”
How on earth can Ishmael “play” with Isaac if he cannot walk or talk or otherwise do anything to care for himself?? Sorry, but your reading of this episode reduces it to utter gibberish.
You’re reading all that about Ishmael being **unable** to do those things into the text, which doesn’t say anything about Ishmael being an infant, or being unable to walk or talk, etc. You’re also failing to read the text like a pious Christian (or even a Jew, for that matter), who would note these details that Ishmael is silent throughout this episode and then inquire what spiritual lesson God wants us to learn from that asoect of the narrative. Instead, we are expected to conclude that Ishmael is an infant in this story, a detail that contradicts the rest of what Genesis says about Ishmael — and then we are for some reason to refrain from concluding that this contradiction means the Bible contains errors. I much prefer the traditional Judaeo-Christian approach to Holy Scripture over the modern approach. It’s far more spiritually edifying, and a lot easier to fit into the Catholic tradition.
“God tells Moses that he didn’t make his name known to Abraham. That statement would be pointless if Abraham had known the name in some other way.”
In response, I’ll quote Gleason Archer:
“Exodus 6:3 says, ‘And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by My name Yahweh I did not make Myself known to them.’ This might seem to imply that the name itself was unknown before Moses’ time, but such an interpretation goes against actual Hebrew usage. There is a very special significance to the phrase, ‘to know the name of Yahweh’ or ‘to know that I am Yahweh.’ This expression occurs at least twenty-six times in the Old Testament; and in every instance it signifies to learn by actual experience that God is Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God who chastens, cares for, and delivers His covenant people from their foes. . . . Obviously Pharaoh knew that the name of the God of Moses was Yahweh, for he so referred to Him in Exodus 5:2: ‘Who is Yahweh that I should obey His voice to let Israel go?’ Therefore we are to understand Exodus 6:3 as meaning ‘I showed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the all-powerful Ruler of creation and Sovereign over all the forces of nature [i.e., as El Shaddai, God Almighty], but I did not show Myself to them as a covenant-keeping God in the miraculous, redemptive way that I am about to display in the deliverance of the entire nation of Israel from Egyptian bondage.” (Encycl. of Bible Difficulties, pp.66-67)
You see, if your literalist interpretation of Ex. 6:3 is correct, then we would have to accept that we have a real contradiction in Holy Scripture — and even more, we would have to conclude that the author of Exodus, and all subsequent editors, and all succeeding scribes and teachers and rabbis and apostles and bishops and priests, were somehow unable to notice that Pharaoh and the Patriarchs knew God’s name YHVH. You’d think somebody along the way would have said, “Hold on a sec! That doesn’t make any sense! Let’s just, um, fix that, shall we?” You’d think the Holy Spirit would have noticed as well, and prevented the inspired author from making so glaringly ridiculous a gaffe.
Really, reading the Bible literalistically, as you’re doing in Ex. 6:3, would have us believing that God decreed castration as the punishment for anyone who urinated in public. (“I shall cut all them that pisseth against the wall.”)
P.S. Didn’t they find texts at Ebla, dating well before the Exodus, that had theophoric names containing the name YAW?
“All due respect, Kevin, but this is modernist drivel, pure and simple.”
If you’re really sincere about giving me “all due respect,” you might start by … well … giving me all due respect.
Go read Ratzinger (In the Beginning) on how one really determines what the author is “asserting” (most notably, by considering what part of the consistent canonical message the text contributes to – sometimes, the historical details will matter, as in Jimmy’s mention in his follow-up post of Peter and Andrew being brothers – sometimes, as in the case of Ishmael and Isaac’s ages, it won’t). (By the way, there’s a good parallel here: As Ratzinger says that John 1:1ff is the “authoritative” creation account, giving Gen. 1 and 2 their meaning, so one could say that Paul’s treatment of Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians is the “authoritative” interpretation of that part of Genesis, giving it its meaning.)
On DV: The best evidence regarding whether it develops doctrine is (a) what it says – i.e. what it does say, and what it doesn’t – and (b) how people like the pope and Ratzinger interpret it. (Note that THE POPE, in an example I gave above, doesn’t have any problem with the idea that a biblical statement that “Moses said X” [cf. Deut. 31:30] needn’t actually mean that Moses said X. Shall we dismiss his views as modernism? Of course, some people do. But I’m not going there.)
Regarding development: It is not true that a doctrine can’t cease to be such. WE are not at liberty to refuse assent to a doctrine, whether or not it’s infallible. But the MAGISTERIUM can certainly alter a non-infallible doctrine, and this has happened countless times on countless subjects.
Next, I’ve already indicated that I’m arguing precisely that only someone taking a literalistic view of what authors must be deemed to “assert” would be BOTHERED by the sorts of contradictions I’ve pointed out, thinking that they just couldn’t exist, that someone would have fixed them if they were really there. My point is precisely that even though they indicate multiple traditions (“sources”) are being drawn from, they don’t indicate the sort of “error” that is any sort of problem whatsoever for faithful readers ancient or modern. This is the opposite of “literalism.”
Finally, the above claims concerning Gen. 21 and Ex. 6 are precisely the sort of contrived arguments to which I was alluding in an earlier comment. I’m not going to continue to respond to them (especially to someone who thinks text criticism is just “opinion”), except to note that just about everyone who’s ever spent any time with young infants has seen them “playing” in various ways.
Bye, folks. Have fun with your fideism. I’ll stick with Catholicism.
Actually, I’ll make just one last point.
Ratzinger makes a big deal in In the Beginning of the principle that the OT needs to be interpreted primarily in a forward-looking way – i.e. in light of how it looks forward to the Gospel – rather than a backward-looking one – i.e. by seeing its meaning in its past.
I think he’s right.
I also think that’s true of interpreting Church teaching as well.
And I think it’s ironic that, above, others are wanting to read DV in the opposite way – primarily by reading into it past teachings – rather than (re)reading the past teachings in light of DV, reading DV in light of JPII and Ratzinger, etc.
I can’t resist – two last points.
1. Re: Archer on Ex. 6: I’m not sure why you think it’s helpful to quote an Evangelical-apologist-type as an authority on how Catholics should read Scripture. It is, in any case, silly to think that God wasn’t known to Abraham as a covenant-keeping God. Read the Abraham cycle sometime.
2. Re: Gen. 21: I maintain that Ishmael is clearly portrayed as helpless, as having to be moved around by his mother (under the bush, from whence he can’t move himself), unable to help her look for food, etc. And that denials of this are an evasion, however “traditional” they may be. Finally, it’s not necessary that he was doing anything special to Isaac to upset Sarah – all she’d have needed would have been a reminder that, if Ishmael weren’t disposed of, he’d remain there as a joint heir with her own son Isaac. (And by the way – note that the Heb. in 21:9 doesn’t even exactly contain Isaac’s name! The typical translation – he was playing “with Isaac” – is an interpolation. Now, the verb translated “playing” or “laughing” is also the word from which Isaac’s name comes, so the interpolation is a fair one – there’s an allusion of sorts to Isaac. But the Hebrew simply can’t bear the weight of the “traditional” interpretation.)
And with that – I’m really outa here. I’m giving up this thread for (the remainder of) Lent, so help me …
“I’m not sure why you think it’s helpful to quote an Evangelical-apologist-type as an authority on how Catholics should read Scripture.”
But then, as you well know, I didn’t quote him as an authority on how Catholics should read Scripture. I quoted him to show that there is a convincing way to read Ex. 6:3 without having to see it as contradicting the rest of the Pentateuch. And if you think Archer is merely an Evangelical-apologist-type, then you need to get out more. He’s a fully credentialed biblical scholar. Really, do you fault Catholic scholars like, say, Scott Hahn, for making use of Protestant scholarship in his books and papers? Or do you question the NAB because Protestant scholars helped create it?
“It is, in any case, silly to think that God wasn’t known to Abraham as a covenant-keeping God. Read the Abraham cycle sometime.”
Already read it many, many times, thank you very much. But I suggest you read Archer again. He didn’t say Abraham didn’t know God as a covenant-keeping God. He said Abraham didn’t know God as a NATION-REDEEMING and NATION-ELECTING covenant-keeping God.
“I maintain that Ishmael is clearly portrayed as helpless, as having to be moved around by his mother (under the bush, from whence he can’t move himself), unable to help her look for food, etc.”
Here’s an idea: you don’t think the fact that he was dying of thirst had anything to do with it, maybe? Notice that she wasn’t able to move or look for food either. Does that mean Hagar was an infant too?
“And that denials of this are an evasion, however ‘traditional’ they may be.”
It’s an evasion to think that Hagar and Ishmael, who are portrayed in the episode as dying of thirst, were dying of thirst?
“Finally, it’s not necessary that he was doing anything special to Isaac to upset Sarah – all she’d have needed would have been a reminder that, if Ishmael weren’t disposed of, he’d remain there as a joint heir with her own son Isaac.”
Possible, but it’s not how Jews and Christians have traditionally understood it.
“But the Hebrew simply can’t bear the weight of the ‘traditional’ interpretation.”
And I continue to believe that those who understand Hebrew, who have lived and breathed the text for thousands of years, might actually understand what’s going on in the text. The Hebrew has borne that weight for 2,000 years. What has changed that makes the traditional interpretation untenable? What is in the text that rules it out?
BTW, one thing I don’t like about Prof. Miller’s interpretation of Gen. 21:9 is that it makes Sarah into an Evil Stepmother eager to get a rival heir out of the way of her son. As I said, that’s a possible reading of the text, but it doesn’t fit as well with Sarah’s role in Scripture as a saintly Mother of the Faithful, nor with allegories that see in her a foreshadowing of Mary. Granted, these things would not be convincing or compelling in an of themselves, but taken together, it encourages me to take the traditional route here.
I just discovered Jimmy Akin’s blog last night 2/14 and returned today linking to this February 11, 2005 thread on Four Sources in the Pentateuch which I read though Jared Olar’s 2/14/8:45 am post.
***Four Sources in the Pentateuch** I found this topic interesting because I have just finished reading Cracking the Bible Code by Jeffrey Satinover. Here is the link to a review of this book in the journal First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html
and a sampling of the book itself at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684849739/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5831233-2928745#reader-page
I’m assuming that you have heard of the Bible codes as Michael Drosnin’s books The Bible Code and Bible Code II have been so popular.
I checked with a Catholic Answers forum asking for a reputable review on this topic; the Satinover review was recommended.
Satinover makes a very strong case for the fact that it is the Jewish tradition that the Pentateuch was dictated LETTER BY LETTER to Moses and that this was passed on orally.
It would seem that what the Jewish community has to say about this matter would be considered. Perhaps that this is the the belief of the Orthodox Jews has just recently come to light – after Dei Verbum etc.? Might it have an influence on how the authorship of the Pentateuch is viewed by the Church in the future? Do you know of any discussion on this topic by Catholic Biblical scholars?
Jeffrey Satinover’s website http://satinover.com
I gave the wrong URL for Satinover’s Cracking the Bible Code in the above post; it is:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/068815994X/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5831233-2928745#reader-page
The one I gave was for Drosnin’s The Bible Code. Sorry.